Pjtaylor-96-138044

Rebuilding Coraline (2024)

One step at a time.

This behind-the-scenes short played at the end of the 15th-anniversary re-release of 'Coraline (2009)'. It features several people involved with recreating the Coraline puppet for an updated promotional animation detailing what went into that process, providing insight into the different crafts involved with its construction and highlighting the technological advancements that have occurred in the years since the original puppets were made. It's formatted as a roundtable discussion interspersed with b-roll footage of whatever's being spoken about. Although it is interesting enough to hold your attention if you're at all concerned with how movies are made, it doesn't seem to get as detailed as it could have. You can tell it's been edited down from a much longer, perhaps deeper conversation. I would have personally liked more insight into each aspect of the process, and potentially would've preferred a focus on puppet creation rather than puppet re-creation (as in a focus on how Laika makes its puppets in general, rather than how they've improved that process over time). If you know nothing about making puppets, perhaps you'll be a tiny bit out of your depth. Similarly, if you have no interest in making puppets, you may not be all that intrigued by the featurette. However, I do appreciate the peek behind the curtain at one of cinema's leading stopmotion studios, as well as an insight - however limited - into the development of such an iconic character. In some ways, it highlights just how impressive Laika's animation has always been, how boundary pushing it is even in the studio's least kinetically and aesthetically ambitious effort. Although this isn't the best behind-the-scenes material I've seen, and it does feel a little underwhelming considering its essentially the little treat that comes packaged with the 15th-anniversary re-release, it's still an enjoyable and interesting effort.

Batman: Dead End (2003)

The caped crusader, indeed.

I had no knowledge of 'Batman: Dead End (2003)' until I saw a TikTok reposted as an Instagram Reel (or was it a Facebook Reel?) that featured the lead actor talking about how he became Batman when the cameras were rolling and scared the director. After seeing that video, I decided to see if the short was on YouTube and, lo and behold, it was.

The only thing I'd read, from the comment section of the above video, was that it had a cool cape shot. And it does, indeed, have a cool cape shot. It's very atmospheric and crafts a distinct visual style with what must have been a limited (although not shoestring) budget. The Batman costume is grey and black, with a permanently sculpted scowl and beady white eyes peering out from the blackness. The chiseled, square chin of the lead actor suits the short's hefty take on its intimidating main character. Its interpretation of the Dark Knight feels aesthetically similar to Batfleck, albeit grittier and a little less refined. The overall vibe is arguably darker than that of the Tim Burton movies, and it's impressive to think this low-key and 'serious' take on the character - likely a reaction to Joel Schumacher's recent silly efforts - predates even Batman Begins (2005). Visually, the short nails exactly what it's going for. Narratively, it's a little less compelling. Not all that much happens and its character dynamics are very basic if you're familiar with the source material. That is... until a certain something happens.

• I recommend going into this as blind as possible, so if you haven't seen the short I suggest you go watch it before reading any further (spoilers below). -

As I mentioned earlier, I had no prior knowledge of this short and went into it knowing only that it had a cool cape shot. Imagine my surprise when, after some very clunky and on-the-nose dialogue from the Joker, a Xenomorph shows up. Then imagine my surprise when, just as I'd adjusted to the idea that this is a secret 'Batman vs Alien film', a Predator shows up. It's a 'Batman vs Alien vs Predator' short film that I've never heard of before... how is that possible!? Even though you can definitively tell this is a fan film, it's undeniably pretty awesome. It's a hint at what might have been, and what might have been is really damn exciting (if inherently a little silly). The short predates the two official vs movies featuring two thirds of these characters, and it's potentially better precisely because it doesn't need to craft a logical and compelling narrative around its premise. It just gets in, does what it needs to do and gets out again. Most of it's a battle between Batman and a Predator, and - even though it's a little clumsy - it's compelling and fun. There is a sense that there's not all that much to it, though, and it isn't as refined as it potentially could have been. Still, it's entertaining enough and benefits massively from the element of surprise. You'd think that would be a negative, but I think that the way its reveals are executed - bluntly, yet with glee - afford the piece a sense of... muscular wonder.

Ultimately, this is a well-made and unpredictable fan film with some fantastic visuals and a solid sense of atmosphere. It's light on story and isn't as compelling as it perhaps could have been, with some clumsy dialogue and a generically gritty vibe, but it's a really solid effort. I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it sooner.

Time Cut (2024)

Time Cut? More like Time to Cut it out.

'Time Cut (2024)' is one of those movies that's tempting to call "fine" simply because it's watchable. However, it's so lazy and half-baked that to do so would be disingenuous. Everything about it feels designed to tick a box rather than tell a compelling story. It's designed from the ground up to exist within the current trend of time-travel slashers and take advantage of the sub-genre's current momentum, and it feels very cynical because of it. It has some interesting ideas and themes, but it doesn't have the ability or desire to actually explore them. Instead, things just happen because they have to, and each plot beat seems as though it's been designed with the least amount of thought and effort possible. The whole thing looks and feels like one of those 'live-action cartoon' movies Nickelodeon used to do, which is to say cheap and unconvincing but likely serviceable for small children. It's the kind of film that was clearly put together in a short amount of time, scribbled onto paper and commuted to film as quickly as possible so it doesn't just fade into the nothingness Netflix's own algorithm has all but ensured for more enthusiastic fare. It's not terrible, but it isn't good. It's filmmaking as business. Time Cut? More like Time to Cut it out.

'A' gai wak 2 (1987)

(Project) A fantastic sequel.

Although its narrative isn't as compelling (primarily because it isn't as focused), 'Project A Part II (1987)' is every bit as enjoyable as its predecessor. Sammo Hung and Biao Yuen are sorely missed, but Jackie Chan is as excellent as ever and he's surrounded by a rock-solid cast of returning members (such as Mars) and series newcomers (such as Maggie Cheung and Bill Tung). The film constantly drops your jaw with its ferociously creative choreography (there's a moment in which Chan does that classic bit of pulling the cloth off a table without knocking over any of the glass on it but he does so within the context of a fight scene, sending his opponent crashing to the ground with the graceful flick of the fist usually reserved for party tricks) and utterly brazen stunts (the Buster Keaton homage is made all the more impressive by the fact that Chan has previously run down a gigantic wall as its collapsing). The picture is exciting and funny in equal measure, an action comedy that tickles the ribs and knocks off the socks. It's an exhilarating experience that puts a smile on your face and keeps it there for its entirety. It's really great. You'd expect nothing less from Jackie Chan, but sometimes you need to take a step back to appreciate the utter excellence he constantly brings to our screens; even his worst effort is better than a lot of martial artists' best, and he's almost always the most enjoyable part of the films he's in.

'A' gai wak (1983)

(Project) A blast from beginning to end.

Striking a perfect balance between action and comedy, 'Project A (1983)' stands out as one of the best entries in Jackie Chan's impressive filmography. It's quintessentially madcap martial arts, everything you'd expect from its director/star, and it's an absolute blast. Splitting its time evenly between ferocious fights, propulsive chases, death-defying stunts, farcical mix-ups, and slapstick set-pieces that would do Buster Keaton proud, the gleefully frantic and perfectly choreographed picture hits every note you could ever want it to with the nonchalant excellence that can only come from something crafted by true masters. Sammo Hung and Biao Yuen join Chan in this pirate-punching adventure, capping off an already rock-solid cast (which includes the likes of Dick Wei and Mars) and solidifying this as one of the most iconic collaborations of its era. It's a really, really entertaining effort that's well-made in every area and constantly has you kicking your feet with glee. It's a total blast. So much of it looks so painful and yet it's almost all intended to make you smile; these people truly do bleed for their art and, when their art is as good as this, it's worth every drop. If you have any interest in action cinema, do yourself a favour and watch this movie. It's brilliant.

Paddington in Peru (2024)

A perfectly pleasant Peruvian adventure.

'Paddington in Peru (2024)' isn't as good as 'Paddington 2 (2017)', but it isn't as big a step down as some early reactions led me to believe. For the most part, this is still an entertaining and delightfully polite experience that's as pleasant as it is brisk. Although the more standard adventure narrative is less idiosyncratic than the vignette approach of the first two pictures, it still works well enough in this context and allows its lovable characters to continue to charm even as they're subjected to the classic sequel thing of being taken out of their natural habitat to explore the as-yet-unknown origins of the main character. There are plenty of funny moments and the film is good-natured from its very first frame. It's a really nice movie, and sometimes that's all you need.

What it does lack in comparison to its predecessors is a strong emotional core. Even though a handful of its moments are moving, the piece isn't especially poignant and it isn't going to get your tear ducts working. Plus, some of its character work is rather superficial and, as my brother pointed out, almost feels like an obligatory afterthought. The narrative in general is rather conventional and follows a specific formula almost to a tee. It's fairly predictable and feels relatively generic, almost like it was retrofit for Paddington after its basic beats had already been pencilled in.

Despite its few issues, there's still more than enough to like about the feature. Its lovable cast is as strong as ever, with some delightful newcomers (Antonio Banderas and Olivia Coleman) chewing the scenery with glee whenever that's what's needed. The special effects are consistently good, believably bringing the eponymous bear to life in such a way that it's strange to think he's never actually in the same space as the other characters. When he naturally doesn't turn up at the red carpet, it feels like someone is missing. The film is light and bouncy; it truly flies by and is generally a lot of fun. It's marmalade-packed with gags, both visual and dialogue-based, and scenes of slapstick action that sweeps you off your feet. It's a really good time.

Ultimately, this is a perfectly respectable addition to its series that's well-made and enjoyable throughout. It's unfortunate that it follows 'Paddington 2 (2017)', as there's an argument to be made that's the best - or, at least, most universally appealing - picture of all time, because this is genuinely a great family film. If you're expecting the best film of all time (again) or even the second best film of all time, you'll obviously be disappointed. However, it's a rock-solid effort that's charming and entertaining in pretty much each and every scene. It's a lot better than plenty of similar fare. If you don't go in expecting a miracle, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Juror #2 (2024)

He was #2!

'Juror #2 (2024)' is the latest film directed by Clint Eastwood, who continues to impress with the relative consistency of his output even as he continues to require more and more candles on his birthday cakes. Known for his reserved, to-the-point directing style that always brings his features in on time and under budget, the nonagenarian filmmaker clearly has an eye for cinema and the desire to continue contributing to it. There's pretty much nobody more experienced in Hollywood, and he clearly loves making movies enough to do it every couple of years despite being well past the age most folks want to retire. All that is to say that if Eastwood is involved, it's unlikely a picture is going to disappoint (although not impossible, *cough* 'The 15:17 To Paris (2017)' *cough*).

The best way I can describe the film, as well as most other Eastwood efforts, is solid. Someone on Letterboxd (I'm paraphrasing Matt Lynch, I think) said this could have been made at any point in the last 75 years and that's pretty much on the money. Although it does attempt to say something about truth, justice and the American way (it can't be a modern Eastwood movie without some good ol' fashioned conservatism), it isn't particularly contemporary in its themes or aesthetic. That isn't a bad thing, though. It plays like a take on '12 Angry men (1957)' but focus the morality play more specifically onto one person, a recovering alcoholic who thinks he holds the key to a 'not guilty' verdict but can't come completely clear for reasons I won't spoil. There is some focus on a couple of secondary characters and the way in which they each have to decide if the truth is more important than their personal gain, but the narrative is anchored around the protagonist and we very much experience the story from his point of view. It's interesting to see him navigate his dilemma, and the flick does a good job of getting you to think about what you'd do in his situation. It does skip over some key internal development at a certain point in order to generate a sense of suspense in the build-up to a reveal, and I feel as though this does a slight disservice to the film as it prevents us from fully grasping why the lead does what he ultimately does. Still, most of the experience is engaging both intellectually and emotionally.

The piece isn't massively affecting and it also isn't always the most compelling - or, perhaps, exciting - take on its genre, but there's a sense that it's close to the best version of itself possible and it's entertaining enough for what it is. The performances are all really good, the writing is relatively naturalistic, the cinematography is refined, and the direction is consistent. It's a solid movie, but it isn't really something you'd write home about. Then again, it's the sort of thing that will probably play differently for a certain generation. I could easily see it eventually being a sleeper hit on cable television for those who still consume their media that way. It's good, but not great. However, as I've said before, sometimes that's all you need. It's a nice Sunday afternoon movie.

Siu nin Wong Fei Hung chi: Tit ma lau (1993)

Steal from the rich... and kick their butts while you're at it!

Essentially the martial arts movie version of 'Robin Hood', 'Iron Monkey (1993)' is an entertaining actioner that's essentially a blend between the more ground-level choreography of a Jackie Chan or Lau Kar-Leung film and the more heightened wirework of a traditional Wuxia effort. The result is a feature that favours absurd, semi-slapstick acrobatics and impossible, semi-slapstick Kung fu over 'realistic' - or even particularly feasible - fight scenes, all without compromising the sincerity of its premise. It has its funnier moments, and some of its eventual brutality is so disarming you can't help but smile at it, but it's generally played relatively straight, feeling less like an action-comedy and more like an action with comedy in it. The tone works well for the material, and the narrative plays with classic Kung fu tropes in a way that feels naturalistic. Director Yuen Woo-ping also choreographed 'The Matrix (1999)' and you can easily see this film's influences on that film's style. Although it's a little shaky in terms of story and pacing, the picture is generally quite a bit of fun. It isn't massively engaging for a fairly large part of its first half, but it gets more and more enjoyable as it heads into its final third and you've had more than enough time to acclimatize to its vibe. It has some really entertaining, expertly choreographed and executed action. It's also really stylish and feels as though it knows exactly what it is. It's a really solid effort overall.

Heretic (2024)

He's a creep; he's a weirdo.

'Heretic (2024)' is a religious horror film about two Mormon missionaries who visit a strange but seemingly friendly man with a passion for theology and the sound of his own voice. It soon becomes clear that the homeowner has an ulterior motive for letting them in: he isn't buying what they're selling, he's selling them something much more radical. Despite his claims to the contrary, the young women have no real choice but to listen to his rhetoric thanks to a strange front door that bolts itself shut and apparently can't be opened again until morning. With essentially only three characters, the chamber piece relies mostly on back-and-forth dialogue for its first two movements, establishing a simmering sense of suspense which eventually boils over in its final third. What's fairly refreshing about the set-up is the fact that the two missionaries (excellently portrayed by Chloe East and Sophie Thatcher) don't blindly walk into an obviously dangerous situation, and they pick up on the clues that things aren't quite right earlier than most characters in their situation historically have. They make the decision to cut and run right around the same time the audience is screaming at them to do so, but unfortunately it's too late; both character and viewer are locked in with Hugh Grant's verbose theologist, left no choice but to consider what he's saying. He's the kind of guy that thrives on a captive audience, speaking with such conviction that he almost convinces you he knows what he's talking about. Even though he makes some interesting points, you start to see the holes in his arguments when he's challenged on some of the stuff he says (or doesn't). You're never quite sure if he's genuine in his desire to convert the two would-be converters to his own way of thinking, as everything he says is overshadowed by the fact that he's saying it to a (literally) captive audience. What's his game? That's basically the question at the core of the piece, and the narrative does a good job of taking you on a journey which twists and turns whenever it threatens to get stale. Although it is fundamentally rather silly, especially when it heads in certain directions, it remains engaging for its majority, largely due to the strength of its performances (Grant is having tons of fun) and the consistency of its writing. There are some less-than-believable moments and contrivances, but none of those are massively detrimental to the overall affair because they're par for the course with this kind of stuff. It doesn't take itself particularly seriously, even though it is played pretty much totally straight, and it isn't afraid of its genre, never really suggesting that it may be 'elevated horror'. It's good fun for what it is, an enjoyable and interesting take on a well-worn format that's pacy and fairly thrilling. It's a really solid effort.

Anora (2024)

'Cinderella' if the prince was too wasted to find the glass slipper...

'Anora (2024)' is another humanist look at the sex work industry from writer-director Sean Baker, in many ways a spiritual successor to his earlier 'Tangerine (2015)'. The film focuses on the eponymous Anora - or Ani, for short - as she becomes involved with a rich Russian man-child and is swept away on a whirlwind romance... until reality finally hits like a truck. It's essentially 'Cinderella' if the prince was too wasted to find the glass slipper and too cowardly to pick it up even if he could.

Shot and acted with an urgency normally reserved for more overtly guerilla fare, the feature toes the line between Baker's usual fly-on-the-wall realism and a more traditional, specifically plotted narrative. It's naturalistic, sometimes devastatingly so, but it also tells a fairly propulsive story that has a relatively commercial appeal. That's not a bad thing, as it allows the picture to potentially reach a wider audience than Baker's usual stuff while still preserving the distinct vibe and charm of that same work. The grounded performances are so lifelike and raw that it's almost difficult to believe everyone is just acting; there are moments where this feels close to a documentary, in a way. The screenplay is so keenly observed that it's difficult to tell what's penned and what's improvised in the final result, and the direction knows exactly when to push itself forward and when to pull itself back. The film disarms you by presenting itself cinematically, then switches gears and allows its established style to take a backseat when the romance fades in the back half. For example, the deliberate pacing initially sweeps you off your feet, then drops you to the ground and forces you to sit in the same uncomfortable situations as its protagonist for extended periods of time.

Alternating between humour, heart, and the horror of reality, the feature keeps you engaged throughout its admittedly long runtime. It never feels as though it's dragging, even if some elements could have potentially been tightened up with little detriment to the overall affair, and its subtle character work remains interesting even though it's arguably non-existent in places (it's the kind of development that takes place in-between the lines). While it isn't massively affecting, it does make you feel for its protagonist and it does a great job in making you root for her from very early on. Mikey Madison is truly brilliant here, as striking as the tinsel in her hair. She's at once outwardly resilient and inwardly vulnerable, a force to be reckoned with who's also deeply human. This is certainly a star-making role for her and she deserves all the praise coming her way. The other actors all do a really good job, too, delivering the kind of work that's so naturalistic it's all too easy to overlook. This is an expertly performed picture and it's difficult to overstate just how important that is to its ultimate effect. It's the kind of movie that sort of creeps up on you in terms of how much it has moved you. The more you think about it, the more fondness you have for it.

Its charm is somewhat difficult to describe, but it's utterly undeniable. It's a really strong picture, even if I would have perhaps liked it to dig a little deeper into the psyches of its characters. It does start to lose me a bit as it heads into its third act, and its denouement is somewhat drawn out. Having said that, the final moments are actually key to understanding the emotional tapestry of the overall affair. The ending feels more and more necessary the longer you let it sit with you. When it comes down to it, this is an entertaining and compelling feature that stays with you after its over. It's beguilingly beautiful.

Woman of the Hour (2023)

UnHINGEd.

'Woman Of The Hour (2023)' tells the story of a real-life serial killer whose charm allowed him to hide in plain sight, to the point that he even appeared on national television with no real consequences. In actual fact, it doesn't so much tell his story as it does the stories of some of the women he encountered, filtering his despicable actions through their point of view and consistently returning to his time on 'The Dating Game (1965-1973)' but doing so from the perspective of the woman playing the game opposite him. The underlying theme of the picture is the way in which the patriarchy is inherently biased towards dismissing women, and much of the movie is built around this frustrating and unjust truth. We see the pleas of women be ignored time and time again, and the complacency of the patriarchy is portrayed as being almost as detrimental to women's safety as the serial killer himself. It's a compelling central concept, one that's as honest as it is horrifying, and the film is generally really sad overall because it almost constantly opts to show the unfortunate reality of its situation (even if it is a little liberal with the truth).

There are a number of suspenseful sequences that either end in tragedy or one heck of a close call, and these segments are easily the movie's highlights. Unfortunately, the overall picture feels a little scattershot. It's almost as if it isn't able to say what it wants to say before it ends, which is likely why its revealing text ending goes on for so long, and it isn't sure if it wants to priotitise its theming or (its version of) its actual events. By telling its story from the point of view of its female characters (which is, I feel, the right way to tell it), it isn't able to dig into the nitty gritty details of the overall case, which would be totally fine if it didn't suddenly try to convey all of those details in its closing moments. It just makes it feel slightly unsteady, and almost renders its heavy focus on its dating game segment somewhat redundant in a way (although certainly not entirely).

Still, I appreciate the less sensational, more human approach it takes to its material, and it remains engaging throughout. Also, its playful yet potent jabs at the misogyny of TV dating shows are often enjoyable, if slightly misplaced within the generally serious nature of the story. From a technical standpoint, it's a really well-made effort in pretty much every area. Anna Kendrick does a really good job with her directorial debut, gently navigating thorny material by keeping the film's focus where it needs to be (her choices never once threaten to become irresponsible in terms of violence towards women).

Ultimately, this is a confident and well-handled film that's somewhat slight but doesn't suffer massively because of it. It feels a little less focused than it could have, and it doesn't really do all that much in terms of character development. However, it's an engaging and often frustrating experience about a very bad man and the less bad men who basically enabled his behaviour.

Kill List (2011)

Rage won't save you.

'Kill List (2011)' is devastatingly domestic, a genre movie without most of the trappings that genre movies have. The film focuses on an angry hitman who, while still struggling to overcome the physical and mental trauma of a previously botched job, takes on a new contract with his partner. The task forces him into unexpectedly seedy territory and threatens to do more damage to his family dynamic than his lightning-quick temper. Although it takes a while before any actual violence comes into play, the picture is explosively savage right from its opening moments. It sticks you straight into an uncomfortably ferocious situation, forcing you to watch as the hero and his wife have a series of almost hateful arguments while their son cowers in the other room, and only increases the volume from there, revealing more of its dark underbelly and punctuating each twist of the knife with a moment of utter savagery. It's ultra-violent without having an ounce of catharsis, its bloodshed never once being anything other than crushingly unsettling. It really is rather disturbing overall, reliant on a powerful lead performance that practically embodies rage itself and a low-fi atmosphere that makes each moment feel as though it could be occurring down the street.

The picture subtly builds to a cataclysmic climax steeped in folk horror, its destination having been quietly set in stone from the opening graphic. It isn't 'The Wicker Man (1973)' until it is, as a new kind of horror springs up from the distressing domesticity that perpetuates the rest of the picture. There are bigger things happening here, but we only ever glimpse them through the eyes of the protagonist. By the time you see them coming, it's already far too late. Although the final moments feel as though they've been found in the edit, as though their inclusion isn't strictly due to deft planning and more from a willingness to hint towards certain things for the simple fact that they're scary to hint towards. The story occasionally feels poorly-defined, its ambiguity arising from a lack of nuance and skill rather than an abundance of it. However, the decision to sacrifice perfect plotting for glaring gaps in narrative isn't an entirely bad, or lazy, one. The intention is to generate horror from the absence of a traditional ending, and this complete disinterest in providing the comfort of answers or any real kind of resolution beyond the blunt bleakness of the brutal final imagery just about works within the context of a movie as confronting as this. I can't say the final movement isn't a little underwhelming to me, but I also can't say I can't appreciate the route it takes to reach its haunting end.

Ultimately, this is a film that's deeply disturbing and purposefully tough to watch. It's a well-made effort, especially considering the rather low budget, and I like how unconventional it is in some key areas. However, not all of it works for me, and some of it is even just a little bit dull. It isn't as engaging as it could have been, and its most upsetting moments almost feel as though they're included for shock value more than anything else (even if they do add to, and notably elevate, the distressing nature of the overall affair). It isn't bad, by any means. It's a solid effort in most areas. It's not enjoyable, but it isn't supposed to be. However, it's also not especially gripping outside of a select few, specifically urgent scenes. It's good, but not great.

Smile 2 (2024)

...and the whole world smiles with you 2.

This gruesome sequel is surprisingly good; it's considerably better than its predecessor. After witnessing her dealer violently take his own life, a stadium-filling pop star finds herself unravelling as her past struggles come back to haunt her and people just won't stop smiling at her. The picture gets your attention right from the start, with a fantastic single-take opener instantly immersing you in this violent and cruel world where trauma is literally a demon that passes itself from victim to victim. The slick cinematography pairs nicely with the inventive camera work to bring Parker Finn's distinct, self-assured direction to the screen. 'Smile 2 (2024)' is invigorating in its desire and ability to present familiar situations in unfamiliar ways, making use of everything from set-design and costuming to performance and score to generate an increasingly claustrophobic atmosphere that makes you feel like you're trapped in the mind of the protagonist and are getting more and more lost in its newfound madness. The violence, which is mostly self-inflicted, is constantly shocking and visceral, with blood and broken bones and bits that should be inside frequently being splashed across the screen. It's quite horrific in its own way, a downward spiral into nasty and unrelenting torment that's so effective it's able to completely overthrow the absolutely absurd premise and the often silly visuals to create a story that's genuinely quite scary. It's not terrifying, and it's more fun freaky than it is ruin-your-day distressing, but it has plenty of sting in its tail and is really well-crafted overall. It is a bit long, but I only really started to feel its length around five minutes before it actually finished so it's not like there's a lot of excess fat on it. It's a really entertaining horror film that's super stylish and satisfyingly imaginative. It's as shockingly gory as it is psychologically unsettling, achieving a strong balance between the two elements. It's a strong effort.

Five Nights at Freddy's (2023)

Ready, Freddy, go!

Although I'm aware of them and have a vague understanding of their mechanics and lore, I've never played the video games on which this is based and therefore have no preconceptions about the picture (although I did do a giddy little Leonardo DiCaprio point at the screen during a certain tangential cameo). I'm less interested in 'Five Nights At Freddy's (2023)' being a successful - or, even, particularly faithful - adaptation than I am in it being an entertaining experience in and of itself. Thankfully, although it does stumble and only ever reaches a certain level of quality, it's a mostly enjoyable effort that remains relatively engaging and intriguing for its majority.

I'm not convinced that everything which is revealed in the final act makes total sense - beyond the inherently ridiculous concept, of course - and I don't think the movie plays around with its more horrific aspects as much as it ought to. It really is baby's first horror, which is fine but obviously isn't going to be as effective for someone more well-versed in the genre (someone like, say, me). In fact, it's much more of a mystery than anything else, and its harsher elements feel as though they're included simply to satisfy certain requirements that an adaptation of its source material ought to have. What I mean is that the scare sequences are semi-tangential to the meat-and-potatoes of the story, at least before the third act brings several plot strands together in a generally more menacing manner.

One of the best things about the film is its use of practical puppetry and costuming to bring its mascot characters to life, something that may seem like an obvious inclusion but could have easily been completely overlooked. It's way more interesting - and convincing - to see these things as real creations within real spaces where they interact with real people than it would be to have to have them created entirely digitally, even if that would've perhaps been the easier - or, at least, more flexible - option. The decision to do most of that stuff in camera adds a weight to it that typically can't be recreated with CGI (especially when on a lower budget), and it really pays off.

Ultimately, although it isn't frightening, the feature has a decent sense of atmosphere and centres around a solid performance from Josh Hutcherson (who should probably be getting more work than he is). There's also a predictably scene-chewing appearance from a horror icon who is always a pleasure to see. Not all of the narrative lines up as neatly as it ought to, but its mystery is generally interesting and it keeps you watching throughout. It's a fairly entertaining experience, despite some notable flaws and a sense that it only ever reaches a certain level of quality, and you can definitely do far worse when it comes to video game adaptations.

Transformers One (2024)

Roll on 'Transformers Two'... or, as Optimus Prime would say, 'Transformers Two', roll out!

'Transformers One (2024)' tells a relatively simple and, once all its pieces are on the board, predictable story, but it has the added wrinkle of having its two main characters react in wildly different ways to their world-shattering experience: one seeks justice and unity, while the other seeks vengeance and destruction (I'll leave it up to you to figure out which is which). I don't think it's a spoiler to say that Optimus Prime and Megatron aren't exactly best buddies by the time the film reaches its climax, even if that's exactly what they are at the beginning of their adventure, and the depiction of the latter's descent into darkness - much to the former's horror - is as compelling as it is understandable (to a point). This is one of the big successes of the feature, as it never feels as though it's forcing its characters into the roles we all know they must eventually occupy (a common prequel problem), rather that it's organically depicting drastic character arcs that are directly informed by the events of the plot. This makes what would otherwise be a relatively standard origin narrative into something far more interesting and nuanced.

On top of all that, the film is just a ton of fun. Its third act, in particular, is a total blast. While it does feature several genuinely funny moments, mainly thanks to Keegan-Michael Key's B-127, it never feels as concerned with making you chuckle as it is with telling a compelling story, and it never talks down to its audience. This makes for an affair that is as interesting to adults as it is to children, the sort of family film that no one in the family begrudges seeing. It does skew slightly older than its colourful, mostly friendly aesthetic - and first trailer - would perhaps suggest, featuring a fair bit of impactful kill-or-be-killed violence and even a couple of fairly brutal murders, none of which is majorly dampened by the fact that the characters are all alien robots. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't take your kids to see this; I'm simply saying that it doesn't skew as young as you might think (a positive in my book) and it isn't afraid of the darkness of the story it's telling.

The animation is really vibrant and smooth, with a cartoony aesthetic that fits the material without falling into the trap of being too mechanical. For instance, the character's faces - and mouths, in particular - have an almost organic look to them that's perhaps a bit too 'fleshy' at times but works better in this context than the made-of-a-million-moving-parts approach the live-action movies take. Overall, this is a fast-moving, free-flowing, eye-pleasing adventure with plenty of inventive, energetic set-pieces and bright, beautiful vistas. It balances chaos with clarity really well and is a pleasure to look at. It also sounds really good, with rock-solid voice work and sound design that immerses you in its metallic world. It's generally well-executed in every area.

Ultimately, this is a highly entertaining and consistently engaging experience. It's a lot better than I expected it to be. It's a shame that it's not doing particularly well at the box-office because it's easily the best 'Transformers' film to date, and I'd personally really like to see Hasbro continue to take this approach in the future. We don't need a whiny Sam Witwicky or a horny little robot or an aggressive Optimus Prime, we just need more of this Cybertron-set, mature-enough-to-not-be-immature storytelling that's as easy to look at as it is to enjoy. Roll on, 'Transformers Two'... or, as Optimus would say, 'Transformers Two', roll out!

The Room Next Door (2024)

It's middling Almodóvar, but still enjoyable.

'The Room Next Door (2024)' is Pedro Almodóvar's first English-language feature. Starring Tilda Swinton and Julianne Moore, the film basically touches on what it's like to live when you know you're going to die (something that we all have to grapple with, whether we realise it or not). There's a poignant line that goes something like "there are lots of ways to live inside a tragedy", and that basically sums up the point of the picture: even though all of our lives must end, that doesn't mean we can't live them with hope and purpose and joy. Although it meanders around while it gets to that point, it doesn't necessarily waste any screen time. Its various plot threads and seemingly inconsequential scenes all actually build towards its main message, and the more obviously important stuff is used to build the relationship of the two characters at its core. Even though it is touching at times, a lot of it is a little dry. Most of the movie consists of conversations in which people straight-up tell someone else how they feel, which can sometimes feel a little clunky. A lot of it is typical Spanish melodrama but acted in English, which can lead to a sort of off-kilter vibe to some of the dialogue. It's also a lot less vibrant than your usual Almodóvar picture, even though it's shot nicely and has a notable personality. What keeps even its driest segments completely watchable is the strength of its performers, all of whom bring an understated charm to their roles. This definitely isn't any of their best work, but it's often keenly observed and constantly engaging. Ultimately, although it's definitely middling Almodóvar, the piece is entertaining and affecting enough to keep you watching from beginning to end. It's never exactly what you think it might be, and it does have well-defined themes that are conveyed in a realistic way. It's not massively moving and it does have its duller segments, but it's a decent effort nevertheless.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

And they're watching.

'The Hills Have Eyes (2006)' is a remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film of the same name. It follows the plot of its source material pretty closely, with some minor alterations being made in an effort to up the impact of its already unsettling violence. You can tell that director Alexander Aja is coming off the back of 'Switchblade Romance (2003)', an entry in the New French Extremity movement, because he really goes all out with the more unpleasant aspects of this picture. In some ways, that's a positive; it contributes to the movie's genuinely grimy vibe and often hard-to-watch nature. In some ways, that's a negative; it often favours shock value over actual horror and is arguably somewhat irresponsible in its depictions of certain types of violence (the women essentially all exist to be assaulted, with the intention being to scare the audience with the cruelty inflicted upon them). I'm torn on the piece because it captures that nasty, dead-soaked feeling of the original and is well-made in almost every aspect, but it often doesn't do the work needed to build genuine scares and instead settles on being as outright gross and upsetting as possible in the hope that the two elements will be conflated with one another. It features the trifecta of trigger warnings: rape/sexual assault, suicide, and violence against children and animals. It seems to only include these elements for the sake of being edgy and, almost, traumatic, never really earning their inclusion (I understand it's tied to the original in some ways and that said film does the same thing, but this interpretation doubles down on most of these aspects in a way that feels more concerned with pushing the envelope than telling a compelling story).

There's a scene about halfway through that's absolutely horrific, the sort of thing that makes your heart sink and your stomach twist itself in knots. It's more than squirm in your seat, it's downright distressing. If you've ever experienced anything close to it in reality, I can see how it could really mess you up. It would be tempting to say that the scene is successful because it's supposed to be vile and difficult to sit through, but the more you think about it, the more you realise that it's a pretty cheap way to get your audience hiding behind their seats. Although its somewhat slow first half is portentous, the movie doesn't really build an atmosphere that matches the intensity of the scene in question (and it's difficult to tell if the dread it conjures is due to the filmmaking itself or due to the fact that you already know where the picture is heading, at least in the vaguest sense, whether or not you've seen the original simply because it so obviously occupies a certain genre). The caravan attack doesn't quite come out of nowhere, but the abrupt increase in sheer savagery creates a whiplash effect that isn't really earned. Arguably worse than the sequence itself is the direction the picture takes in its aftermath. While the remainder of the picture is filled with buckets of blood, bodily harm and generally grotesque imagery, it shifts its focus from nihilistic dismay to (cautiously) cathartic exploitation with a series of scenes in which a certain character becomes a bit of an action man and gets into a few scrapes that aim to be entertaining in their own, genre-specific way (there's a scene in which he fights a guy who's basically a cross between Sloth and Jason and it almost feels like something out of a different movie). The feature is never able to coalesce its two thematic modes. As a result, not only is it an imbalanced and incohesive narrative experience, it also feels somewhat distasteful. The violence against women it depicts (which is primarily sexual) feels like it only exists to allow the male characters to take revenge later on, even if it is intended to up the stakes of the overall situation, which cheapens it and makes it rather problematic. Another problem is the fact that the picture links physical differences directly to abhorrent behavior, making the classic mistake of having its 'monsters' look atypical and driving at least some of its horror from that aspect. That's obviously an irresponsible thing to do, but it would perhaps be a difficult thing for the filmmakers to escape considering their source material basically demands its inclusion in one way or another. The attempts to garner a smidgeon of sympathy for its antagonists by emphasising the man-made reason for their current condition doesn't actually absolve any of the issues regarding representation and stereotype reinforcement, either.

Ultimately, though, while this does have a lot of flaws, it also isn't too out of keeping with either its source material or some of its peers. Its technical aspects are typically rather strong, and it does succeed in making you squirm. It definitely isn't a nice experience. It's better than a lot of 2000s horror remakes, and is probably of a similar quality to the original (although it should have known better in some areas since it's nearly 30 years younger). It's not a bad effort, but that scene definitely didn't need to be as explicit as it is and I also can't deny that a lot of the film's choices backfire.

Ghost Ship (2002)

It's not a titanic failure.

Even though I'd never seen 'Ghost Ship (2002)' before, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was some sort of nostalgic childhood favourite, something I'd seen on TV when I was too young to be seeing it. It doesn't make any sense, but that's the vibe that the film gives off. It has all the makings of an early-2000s cult classic, but nobody really seems to like it. It's not good, but when has that stopped something from gaining an underground following?

The film is the kind of comfortable crap that feels as though it's always belonged on a streaming service. It's not particularly good, even though it has really strong production design and a couple of satisfyingly brutal scare sequences, but it's also weirdly enjoyable in its own way, eventually overcoming most of its issues to be an overall decent experience. The acting is a little flat, especially from one person in particular, but the characters are engaging enough that you're willing to spend time with them and the premise is enigmatic enough that it remains intriguing even as it continuously proves itself to be as generic as it initially seems. The overall feature is the sort of thing that isn't cool precisely because it thinks it is, until a violent flashback arrives just before the third act and it's somehow every bit as awesome as a speed-ramped montage of merciless massacring set to the tune of a grungy rock song and including a final shot of a smirking baddie looking straight down the barrel of the lens should be. It's kind of great in its own, very specific way, an oxymoron of a movie that arguably makes it into the category of "so bad, it's good". I wouldn't rush to see it again, but I had some fun with it.

Fright Night (2011)

He won't bite... much.

'Fright Night (2011)' is the surprisingly good remake of the 1985 comedy-horror film of the same name. It tells the story of a teenager who realises that the mysterious man next door is a vampire and has to figure out how to fight the forces of darkness before they consume everyone he cares about. Although it makes some small changes, the picture is a relatively faithful adaptation of its source material. However, it has a slick, modern feeling (not necessarily a positive) and its frights take on an over-the-top digital aesthetic which makes them feel less theatrical and more unreal (not necessarily a negative). Basically, it takes the same bones and dresses them with different meat, maintaining its own identity even as it retreads familiar moments. With a nice balance of comedy and horror, the flick remains fun for its majority. It isn't particularly scary, but it has a few suspenseful sequences and a couple of moments of effective gore. The cast are all really solid, with Colin Farrell absolutely devouring the scenery and David Tennant proving that Doctor Who can actually swear (and pull off mascara). Toni Collette is great in her fairly minor role, while Anton Yelchin grounds the experience by convincingly descending into a spiral of paranoia before ultimately deciding to take the fight into his own hands. The picture has some entertaining special effects and it plays around with its vampiric concept well (there are several scenes which make fantastic use of the fact that vampires don't have a reflection, which also means they don't appear on video). There are some pretty dodgy CGI effects here and there, and some moments that were obviously designed for 3D in a way only a movie released in 2011 could be. Although the film has updated the aesthetic of its inspiration, it's still cheesy in its own way (something I distinctly remember about the original), and it doesn't take itself particularly seriously. That's a large part of what makes it so fun. It's really enjoyable, to be honest. It has its issues, of course, but none of them really dampen its overall effect. It's surprisingly solid for a remake; in fact, it's probably about as good as the original.

Darby After Dark (2024)

Video didn't kill the radio star... but something did.

'Darby After Dark (2024)' is a short horror film about a radio host who messes with forces outside her control when she participates in a game that seems to connect her with some form of spirit. Made with no real budget, the piece tells its insular story in a convincing and mostly compelling way. Although I don't think the narrative is as well-rounded or satisfying as it could have been, the production design and performances are pretty much perfect. Apparently, the radio station was actually a spare bedroom, which just goes to show how impressive the set design and cinematography is. The lighting, in particular, is effectively ominous, casting a red glow across the room which backlights the lead and hints towards the seriousness of her situation. The lead herself is really convincing, mixing confidence with uncertainty in equal measure. You buy that she has her own nighttime show, and also that she's becoming unsettled by the increasingly creepy things that occur around her. The callers are also really good, with the woman who introduces the game never quite making it clear if her intentions are malevolent or not.

What holds me back from liking the well-made short more is the fact that its punchline doesn't really land for me. Although it's paced well and doesn't lag, there's just not enough room to properly explore its premise. I can easily see how it could be expanded to feature length, with the protagonist first playing the game properly and being intrigued enough to be bolder with it a second time, which results in a more unsettling result and prompts her to break its rules, causing an escalating series of supernatural events that can only lead to ruin. As is, though, we don't really get a proper sense of how the game is meant to operate, nor of what the spirits mentioned throughout actually are/ want. Instead, the picture pivots to a customary series of events and ends with a jump scare that isn't all that effective (and also reveals some relatively disappointing, albeit good for the budget, makeup effects).

Despite my reservations, this is still a really well-made short that is atmospheric and enjoyable. Its performances and production design are its standout elements, with its screenplay perhaps falling just slightly short. It's definitely worth watching.

The Jewel of the Nile (1985)

When they find out what the jewel is, they'll be in de-Nile.

'The Jewel Of The Nile (1985)' is one of those sequels that isn't as good as its predecessor in almost every individual area, but is just about as enjoyable overall. It picks up just six months after 'Romancing The Stone (1984)', essentially asking the question: what happens the day after the heroes ride off into the sunset together? Why, another adventure, of course! The piece quite boldly picks up with cocksure Jack Colton being a bit of a prick, daring to suggest that his relationship with series protagonist Joan Wilder perhaps isn't the true love it was suggested to be. It isn't long before their relationship is tested by more than opposite desires and a need to come out of the honeymoon phase, because they're both swept up on a journey to Africa and become embroiled in a brewing turmoil that seems to revolve around some sort of jewel. Although it's not slow at all, there's this weird sense that the flick is a little bit uninteresting. Perhaps that's not the right way to describe it, but it's definitely less compelling than it ought to be in theory. I'm not exactly sure why that is - after all, the cast are charismatic enough (although Michael Douglas is vaguely creepy sometimes) and there are several fun set-pieces - but a similar issue plagued its predecessor and dampened its overall effect. Still, there's entertainment to be found here and it's a well-made movie overall. It's a good effort that does pretty much exactly what you'd expect it to.

Romancing the Stone (1984)

It is a pretty sexy stone, to be fair.

'Romancing The Stone (1984)' is an adventure movie which clearly provided the inspiration for 'The Lost City (2022)'. The feature focuses on a romance novelist who travels to Columbia to exchange a treasure map for her sister's life, only to get intercepted by a corrupt(?) government official who wants the map for his own nefarious purposes. It's because of this that she meets a rugged exotic bird tradesman and is swept off her feet in a whirlwind of danger, excitement, vague racism, and - of course - romance. It's a very classic kind of feature, one that's unmistakably from the 1980s yet harkens back to mid-century cinema of a similar ilk. The easy comparison would be 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981)', but - although there are definite similarities between the pictures - I don't think this is just a rip-off of that more successful actioner. Instead, primarily because this focuses on an everywoman who's a definite fish out of water in her current situation, the narrative taps into the idea that something like this could happen to anyone. In this way, it doesn't make you want to be Indiana Jones as much as it makes you want to meet him. Of course, Michael Douglas isn't quite Harrison Ford, even if he's basically fulfilling the same archetype, and his particular brand of supposedly super-masculine charm doesn't really feel all that genuine. That's not a major issue, of course, and I'm also aware that I'm not the target demographic for his au naturale allure (it's not a huge stretch that Kathleen Turner would fall for him). Anyway, while the flick isn't massively compelling, it's always entertaining enough for what it is. Its story beats are mostly expected, but I do enjoy the way in which it affords its female lead far more agency than is customary with the genre and period (perhaps, I suspect, because it was actually written by a woman). There are some fun set-pieces, and everyone on screen knows what they need to do and does it well. It isn't all that gripping, but it's enjoyable and that's kind of all you need it to be. I've seen better examples of the genre, but I've also seen worse. It's a good effort.

Ging chaat goo si III: Chiu kup ging chaat (1992)

'Mission: Impossible' eat your heart out!

'Police Story 3: Super Cop (1992)' sees its protagonist team up with an officer from mainland China to take on a dangerous undercover mission and defeat a cruel drug dealer. With much better pacing than its immediate predecessor and a welcome change of scenery, the flick fully embraces the fact that its star is basically a one-man police force in and of himself. Most of the story focuses on Jackie Chan and Michelle Yeoh (two absolute icons) trying not to blow their cover, which leads to some suspenseful sequences and adds an extra layer to the expected narrative. In some ways, the plot is more straightforward than those of its predecessors because it balances its comedy and its action in a more conventional way (leaning more towards the latter and interweaving its humour with its set-pieces, or at least their build-ups and aftermaths, rather than having long stretches of pure comedy). It's also really breezy, to the point that you never really get a sense of what the bad guy's underling operation is actually like, just that he's a crook bloke who needs to be stopped. That doesn't really matter, though, because the story puts our heroes in perilous situations and gives them good enough reasons to be there, allowing the film itself to focus on the things it does best. Stanley Tong isn't quite as strong a director as Jackie Chan, but he still does a really good job. While it may initially feel as though there aren't as many standout set-pieces as you'd expect, eventually the picture evolves into pure action bliss. An explosive shootout segment is thoroughly enjoyable, and the final movement is a total blast that starts with a car chase, spends some time having Jackie Chan hang from a helicopter ladder as it tears through the air, then has Michelle Yeoh jump a bike onto a moving train and stages its final fistfight(s) in the same fast-moving place. The fact that it's all done for real makes it even more of a white-knuckle experience. It may not live up to the euphoric heights of 'Police Story (1985)' (even if it's arguably more dangerous), but you have to give it credit where it's due and accept that it would be mind-blowing if you didn't have that predecessor to compare it to. As it is, it's way better than the majority of action movies out there, even if it's never quite as utterly compelling as it perhaps could have been. It's fun, it's funny, it's exciting; what more could you want? It's a great movie, and it's easy to recommend to anyone who likes anything even remotely action-oriented.

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

If you didn't like it, the joke's on you*.

I had no real interest in 'Joker: Folie À Deux (2024)' (I was already bored of the discourse surrounding it), but morbid curiosity got the better of me and I decided (with the help of my brother) to check it out. I'm glad I did, because not only is the picture not bad, it's actually pretty good. It's not great, and it certainly has its issues, but it's far better than its reputation would suggest.

The meta narrative around the film does feel a bit strange, almost like Todd Phillips doesn't quite understand the point of his own picture. It is kind of a mute point to make a whole movie about how Arthur Fleck isn't the Joker - or, at least, the version many fans seem to think he is - when the ending of the first film heavily implies that he has become that film's version of the Joker. While it feels as though Phillips believes most audience members have misinterpreted his ending, I don't think there's anything to misinterpret there. Instead, some members of the fanbase have regarded the final moments of the first flick as a victory rather than a defeat, and it's this that Phillips takes umbrage with. However, trying to claim that he never intended his version of Joker to actually be Joker (in a movie called 'Joker (2019)', by the way) is really strange, and it misses the point that both his films are - however loose - adaptations of pre-existing material. It's not that he hasn't made a movie about the Joker, it's that he's made a movie about his own version of the Joker. The fact that some fans have taken the wrong message from his derivative earlier work is nothing new (people have been claiming Travis Bickle to be an out-an-out hero for decades), but his notion that this is something he needs to personally correct may be somewhat misguided if it comes from a place of disdain. As are his claims that this second outing for his clown-faced loser isn't a musical, which simply isn't true. However vaguely shy it may be about it, there's no denying that this is a musical and there's also no need to.

While I probably haven't articulated the reasons why this project feels as though it hasn't been thought through fully (or, at the very least, isn't as clever or necessary as it thinks it is), I think I've conveyed the concept that there's nothing particularly revolutionary about any of it. It is interesting that Phillips decided to make a movie as purposefully anti-audience (or, perhaps more accurately, anti-fan) as possible and it is kind of hilarious how Warner Bros. Gave him $200 million to make something that's smaller than the first film in pretty much every way (which cost $50 million) without checking to make sure he was creating something guaranteed to net them another $1,000,000,000 at the box-office (the picture wouldn't be flopping so hard if its budget was more reasonable), the actual affair never quite gets past the promise of being something truly subversive and intriguing. It has plenty of meat, but it doesn't really have the bones to hang it on. While there are some enjoyably unexpected developments in terms of character and theme, a lot - if not all - of these aren't given the depth they deserve nor the attention they need. The technical elements of the feature are far more accomplished than the screenplay. The cinematography, performances (Joaquin Phoenix, in particular), and especially the phenomenal score by Hildur Guðnadóttir almost convince you into thinking you're watching something truly special. The musical sequences, which are typically used to clearly separate fantasy from reality, are often muted but feel appropriate for the material, and - although there's an argument to be made that most of them don't add all that much - they're often enjoyable and give the film a distinct flavour it otherwise wouldn't have had. However, as the runtime ticks on and the slow pacing starts to create an ache in your bones, you begin to get more critical of the aspects of the feature that lurk under its pretty surface. While compelling things do occur and often surprise with their starkness, they have a tendency to come out of nowhere (at least a couple of major moments feel this way) and basically only scratch the surface of the idea they're trying to cut to the core of. Those ideas are good, don't get me wrong, and they're preferable to the more conventional concepts that would typically make their way into a comic book sequel. The fact that this is so unlike what it so easily could have been is one of its biggest strengths, and it's that which makes it potentially more engaging than its pretty cut-and-paste predecessor (even if it isn't as straightforwardly entertaining). Even when it's getting things wrong, you still want to see what it's going to do next. It's always engaging, despite its slow pace and occasional stumbles.

Ultimately, it's kind of admirable that Phillips and co deliberately set out to make the antithesis of what people were perhaps expecting. To take such a huge sum of money and, for all intents and purposes, knowingly flush it down the toilet in an attempt to create something which comments on and critiques the very systems that all but guarantee its failure is a bold move. Whether or not that's giving Phillips too much credit (the meta mirroring between the in-world audience and the real-life audience in terms of how they view the eponymous character could be accidental) is sort of besides the point, because that's what he's done here. It's a shame that the studio will likely take the wrong lessons from it. Although it isn't perfect (or, even, as clever as it thinks it is), it's trying to do something distinct and it's trying to actually say something. Surely we can all agree that's a worthwhile goal, even if we don't like how it goes about trying to do it and say it. Studios should be giving this much freedom to their creatives, but maybe they shouldn't be tossing this much money at something that arguably doesn't really need it. The film is way better than its reputation would suggest, but it has a weird relationship with that reputation because that's part of what makes it as keenly observed - borderline prophetic, even - as it is (okay, maybe that is giving it a little too much credit). It's not great, but it's not bad. If you didn't like it, the joke's on you*.

*You can dislike - or like - whatever you want, of course; it really doesn't matter.

The Wild Robot (2024)

Do the robot.

'The Wild Robot (2024)' is DreamWorks Animation's latest effort. It's about a service robot who wakes up on a wild island with no owner in sight and sets about trying to find someone to give her a task to complete, eventually stumbling onto a gosling and taking on the task of raising it. It's a very typical narrative in its broadest sense, playing with themes of parenthood (specifically maternity), purpose and unity, but it does take some relatively unconventional twists and turns along the way, initially being much more about the formation of a family unit amidst a society that not only marks you as an outcast but also constantly tries to kill you. It's refreshing that its natural setting isn't shy about showing the brutality of the circle of life, with predators chasing and killing prey without being overtly judged for it.

Eventually, the piece settles back on a much more conventional and far less nuanced message of putting aside your differences and working together (no matter how unrealistic that goal may be within the context of the animal kingdom). It basically anthropomorphizes its wider theming to the point where it only really works if you take the film as a metaphor for everyday life, forcing it into a human-oriented worldview that is far less refreshing than the realistically kill-or-be-killed yet gently shaded-in-grey vibe of the first half. As a result, the first two thirds are a lot more satisfying than the last, even if the final movement is still successfully entertaining and emotionally resonant. It also means that the overarching narrative feels a little bit messy in hindsight. Another issue is the fact that the humour and the heart isn't always balanced as keenly as it ought to be.

Aside from those quibbles, though, I really enjoy the picture. For a start, it looks really good, with a painterly aesthetic that calls back to 'Puss In Boots: The Last Wish (2023)' without straight-up copying it. Its texturing is allowed to flow past the edges of its models, lending the affair a storybook vibe that complements its story, and the character designs are as pleasing as they are conducive to fluid movement. Each different animal moves as you'd expect them to, striking an effective balance between stylised and naturalistic, and the protagonist navigates her environment in increasingly creative ways that make use of her malleable form and capitalise on the fact that she isn't a human (or an animal). She's animated robotically but not stiffly, remaining relatively organic as she twists her body into various formations and makes use of appendages and tools seamlessly hidden inside her friendly round form. The emotion she conveys is impressive considering the limited design of her mouthless visage, and the lenses that act as her eyes are somehow able to communicate almost as effectively as the real deal. The character is beaten up quite a bit during the opening movement, and she sustains a level of damage that makes each and every scrape feel impactful and - almost - painful. In a lot of animated movies, violence results in wounds that disappear within moments; here, her injuries remain for the duration of the affair, which increases the stakes considerably - even if you aren't consciously aware of that while you're watching - and adds weight to each and every moment of peril.

The narrative is well-paced for the most part, even if it does hit certain stumbling blocks as it transitions between its various segments and tones (as mentioned earlier). It's simple, but effective. The characters are well-rounded enough that you buy into their arcs, which are basic but effective, and the lively voice work combines nicely with the excellent animation to bring each and every critter to life. The piece has some expected but powerful things to say about choosing your own purpose and living not how you're expected to live, but how you choose to live. It's depiction of a found family is also really heartwarming, and some of its closing moments bring a tear to your eye (especially if you've ever lost someone you love). The experience is enjoyable throughout, bouncing between funny and heartfelt in equal measure. It's also as often exciting and suspenseful as it is silly and light. It's an earnest piece, one that seems to really believe in its central messages, and I can see it connecting with a lot of people, bringing the youngest and the oldest in its audience together in the way that only the best kinds of family films can. Despite its problems, it's really good.